In Short
Obesity is shaping up as the epidemic of the 21st century according to an Australian Obesity Summit. Of particular concern is children's obesity with claims that puppy fat is a myth and obesity is likely to continue into adulthood. Yet authorities have dogged the opportunity to regulate 'pester' advertising whereby young children are being cynically manipulated to harass parents into buying junk food. A true epidemic, or a misuse of language?
A taxi passenger this week was a principal of a rehabilitation facility for sex-offenders. She claimed that with appropriate treatment the recidivism rate for sex-offenders was around 13%. I didn't believe her. Furthermore, she claimed that common criminals like robbers, druggies and physical assaulters had a much higher recidivism rate (around 60%) than sex-offenders. She was right.
The overnight news that 911 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui got life is much better than the death penalty. Not that I'm opposed to the death penalty per se, but in his case life sucks. Moussaoui will remain incarcerated for the rest of his miserable life to rue the missed opportunity of martyrdom and a virgin banquet. Now that's a true bitch.
The other overnight news which really pleased me is that former Premier Jeff Kennet is considering re-entering Victorian politics, after the demise of the current Liberal leader. Why ? Because left-wing bloggers have become stale and boring of late. Kennet is sure to give them new motivation to be 'outraged/appalled'. RWDB's rejoice at the prospect.
Hey Bloggers! Blog on to my blogtastic blog!!! sneers Jim Schembri, under the guise of (lame) satire. He inadvertently demonstrates why many journalists despise bloggers. Namely cabbies, bouncers, the homeless; anyone who can put two words together can publish and gain a readership. What are you afraid of Jim, losing your hallowed status?



zack shouldn't die
he sounds deluded
(not an excuse)
i need a beer
Posted by: john | May 05, 2006 at 08:42 AM
I think you nailed it dead on with Moussaoui - a lot of my American coworkers have been saying he should have ridden old sparky, but that would be giving him wht he wants - martyrdom. This way, he'll die very slowly and alone.
Posted by: wilhelm | May 05, 2006 at 09:00 AM
The best bit about Moussaoui - he will be locked in his cell for 23 of every 24 hours. If it was me who was locked up I would want death rather than that. I can't see him mixing well with the prison population except some of the Muslim Brothers - and I think they may have some issues with him.
Posted by: IWonder | May 05, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Jim is a wanker of the highest order. So he's a Journalist, WOW, I hold them in the same regard as Ambulance chasing solicitors and two dollar whores.
Posted by: steph | May 05, 2006 at 12:17 PM
One other difference Jim Schembri didn't mention : he gets paid for writing that drivel.
Not only that, you can't see how many people read it, and how many people just used the paper to line their bird cage.
Bloggers, at least the well-read (in both senses) ones, haqve a StatCounter to keep track of how they're doing, and who reads them.
Posted by: Zoe Brain | May 05, 2006 at 03:06 PM
I think Jim has a top rival for hating bloggers status in Anita Quigley. The elitism in journalism is just spewful, they can be so full of themselves even amongst other journos. They have become so spoilt being able to push newspeak and pr for so long and they even have the audacity to think they are not only writing quality journalism but that they are the only ones with a right to publish their work. They're just bugged because they are losing their pedestal/jobs, they need to open their minds and adapt to technology and democracy.
Posted by: ab | May 05, 2006 at 08:23 PM
Your comments about Moussaoui echo those of a senior Tasmanian police officer about Martin Bryant.
Which were along the lines, it is far better for him to be seen serving hard time, than becoming a potential martyr for any looney copycats.
As for Jim Schembri another fine example of the mediocre crap we call journalism in Australia.
Posted by: Foxhow | May 05, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Had a drink with some journos last night (journos love a drink) and it's worth noting that not all are from the Jim Schembri school of technophobia and elitism.
At a possible rate of one dollar per word(1305), it's laughable The Age elected to print this rubbish.
Whilst The Sydney Morning Herald has twelve in-house blogs, The Age hosts only one, an entertainment blog. Hence this in last weekend's Herald. So much for The Aged...
Posted by: adrian | May 06, 2006 at 04:56 AM
Those statistics about recividism levels are very interesting. I guess it can give us some hope about that kind of treatment for sex offenders.
Cripes, I think I'm the only blogger who found Jimbo's piece reasonably amusing.
Posted by: Major Anya | May 06, 2006 at 08:20 AM
Jim's piece would have been more amusing if he had cut it in half. We got the joke after about two paragraphs Jim, the rest was wallet stuffer.
young children are being cynically manipulated to harass parents into buying junk food. A true epidemic, or a misuse of language?
Neither, it's just another example of weak kneed parents refusing their responsibilities and blaming everybody else for their own shortcomings.
Posted by: Dirk Thruster | May 06, 2006 at 12:59 PM
"...just another example of weak kneed parents refusing their responsibilities and blaming everybody else for their own shortcomings."
There can be no contesting the influence of advertising - it is a highly developed field that purposefully targets vulnerable groups, to make money - not enhance community well-being.
Clearly increasing obesity and ADHD is of no interest to the advertising companies, pharmaceutical companies, or the television stations who profit from broadcasting their brand of propaganda during times which target one of the more vulnerable sections of the community.
Posted by: ab | May 06, 2006 at 01:56 PM
"...just another example of weak kneed parents refusing their responsibilities and blaming everybody else for their own shortcomings."
and just how much of their constant hounding are we supposed to listen to and cop on the chin before WE start hounding? advertising companies know EXACTLY the response their ads elicit, and they spend copious amounts of money making sure they get the most of that effect as possible.
I think you'll find we arent blaming "everybody else" for our own shortcomings, just the advertising "guru's" for their questionable behaviour. Sure, advertise your product, just do it fairly, stop putting extra pressure on points that dont need it. They've taken it to the point of ridiculousness.
Posted by: Honey | May 06, 2006 at 07:01 PM